Pages

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Commoditising Architecture

Aditi Surie Von Czechowski critiques the sublimation of architectural form by capital in her discussion of Joshua Comaroff's lecture, "Poor Form".

Josh
Comaroff’s talk on “Poor Form” asks us: “what do we learn about the life of
forms, when form itself appears to be challenged?” Comaroff started by
foregrounding the oft-incommensurable relationship between architectural
practice and the requirements of capital. What does it mean when architectural
form fails? In other words, moments in which architecture is awkward, comical,
menacing, or tragic; when architects fail to unify the elements of function or
scale with design, or when the values to which they are committed are at
loggerheads with the logic of rentierism embodied by the buildings themselves.

Comaroff
picks moments of “articulate” failures: failures of form that emerge under
specific historical circumstances and tell us something significant about their
genesis. For an architect, form means something quite specific: the
transformation of the functional and technical requirements into a coherent
aesthetic form using architectural vocabulary. Most architects see form as
inseparable from function, but understand it as a medium for molding all parts
of the building in harmony. This holistic idea of form, according to Comaroff,
is what is under pressure today, when the relationship between the form of a
building and its interior contents often seems arbitrary and contingent. Architecture
like this, where there is no notion of form as following function, is emerging
globally, particularly in places like China. The building as commodity begins
to exert continual pressure on form, as seen in the example of the protean blob
with its vast and highly profitable interior, aestheticized as a signifier of
high design, but nevertheless vulgar; or in the cases of buildings that
exemplify the tensions of tailoring size, density and repetition to high
real-estate value and the requirements of investment. The picture below -
Thames Town in China, a reproduction of an entire English style town close to
Shanghai - for instance, shows the end
result of the logic of repetition and reproduction; a spectacle of architectural
mimicry, it embodies the unheimlich:

Comaroff draws on a dazzling
array of architectural examples across a spatial and temporal spread, from the
Chicago loop to semi-detached houses in Singapore to point to the effects of
commodification on the built environment. Architecture, as a commercial enterprise,
can no longer use form to subordinate the technical and economic core of a
building, or its relationship within a larger context. An example of formal
failure might be novelty architecture, or a building of such sheer scale and
numbers that an architect cannot express anything but quantity. These awkward
forms, then, show the effect of market logic on formal proposition. They show,
in Comaroff’s words: “the violence that value asserts on the built environment”
– whether thought in the purely rentier terms of maximizing profit at the
expense of dead space, or in terms of the maximization of value and the
corresponding scales of density in the production of affordable housing.

The
title, “Poor Form” is perhaps more adequate than Comaroff originally imagined:
it points to both the poverty of forms as well as the both the economic and
aesthetic poverty engendered by the move away from architectural formalism –
the “drift in which architecture, under the sway of its evolution as an
economic substance, floats away even from architecture itself.” Indeed, within
the architectural profession, some have espoused the idea that the
responsibility and centrality of the architectural profession has suddenly
moved away from form.

Like
Massimo Cacciari, Comaroff demands that we become aware of what is
incommensurable in advanced capitalist societies – that we recognize, rather
than sublate, the tragic and farcical elements of modern culture, that we treat
these moments as a sort of analytical technique. But whereas for Cacciari,
negative thought resides in the “Metropolis,” Comaroff’s architectural
examples, though determinedly of the modern city, seem to float somehow above
or outside of it as forms in and of themselves. In fact, buildings come to
resemble cities in boxes – what he terms “potted urbanism.” Recalling Arjun
Appadurai’s opening talk at JWTC, can we connect our understanding of the
functioning of financial capitalism and real-estate speculation to the very
real problems of architectural form? That is, rather than removing the C from
Marx’s M-C-M, can we put it back in with a renewed force?

Comaroff
described his intellectual enterprise as a kind of sleight-of-hand – but we can
also see the crisis of form in the sleight-of-hand performed by terms like “sustainable
architecture” or “architectural renewal” – that is, times when forms do not
quite fail, but become entirely beholden to the logic of making capital(ism/s),
rather than anything else, sustainable. Here, forms appear adequate, even
perfect, but their appropriateness conceals their intended purpose. I am
thinking of places like the High Line Park in New York, a gorgeous,
once-abandoned railway track that has been rehabilitated into a lovely
mid-city-level park. It now draws in hordes of tourists, pushing up real-estate
values in the neighbourhood, and “revitalizing” formerly uncared-for areas near
the West Side Highway and undesirable parts close to midtown transport hubs.
Similarly, parts of East London, the construction of sporting, travel and accommodation
infrastructure for the Olympics has brought in a surge in real estate
investment and a corresponding exodus of large numbers of working class
Londoners who can no longer afford to live there. How are we, then, also to approach
the innovation of forms as those which are welcome, but disguise something
menacing in the promise of a better-designed, functional-yet-prettier future?

Aditi Surie Von Czechowski is a PhD Candidate in Middle East, South Asian and African Studies, Columbia University

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

JWTC

The Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism is an independent platform for critical social analysis based at the University of the Witwatersrand. It is intended for intellectual stimulation, exchange and sustained interaction around the work of noted scholars in the humanities and social sciences, and the emerging fields of critical legal and science studies.